Re: reiserfs vs NTFS vs WAFL

[Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>]

darren wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>Thanx for replying to my mail.
>
>I am doing some tests on this three FS now (to see if we would want to
>spend $$$$$ on a netapp).
>
>My test is based on the simultaneous creation and deletion of small
>files 50Kb, as per my actual usage of the file server for my application
>servers.
>
>My main problem with using Linux/Reiserfs3 is with the performance of
>Samba when under heavy load. CIFS operation is required as some of our
>application servers are windows based. Netapp's CIFS performance is
>really incredible.
>
>With NFS, we can sometimes beat the netapp F87 with a
>Linux/ReiserFs/RAID0 config with the same number of harddisk.
>
This really surprises me.  Be sure to turn tails off when doing a purely 
performance benchmark with V3.

>
>Will post more details when I thru with it.
>
>In the mean time, will really appreciate any suggestions to improving
>Samba's performance in order to make a CIFS file server based on
>Linux/Reiser/Samba possible.
>
Sponsor a guy to work on it.;-)  Sorry, I know that you are probably 
much smaller than mp3.com and can't really cost justify that.  For a 
long time we have known that it would be nice to have someone tweak 
samba for reiserfs, but there is no funding for it (which is odd 
considering the practical/commercial import of such work).

>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Hans Reiser [mailto:reiser@namesys.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 2:14 AM
>To: darren
>Cc: 'reiserfs'; Mike Jadon
>Subject: Re: reiserfs vs NTFS vs WAFL
>
>darren wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I wonder if there are any papers or benchmarks that compare the
>>performance and architectural differences between reiserfs, NTFS and
>>WAFL (NetApp's Write Anywhere File Layout)?
>>
>>Any help will be great.
>>
>>Regards
>>darren
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>I regret to say that all I can do is point you to my LinuxTag paper at 
>www.namesys.com/v4/reiser4_the_atomic_filesystem.html, and give you my 
>informal opinion that NTFS sucks but has improved a lot, and WAFL is 
>great for NFS.
>
>I'd be curious to see mongo numbers on NTFS if anyone has the energy.
>
>Most people comparing WAFL and ReiserFS look at the price per GB and we 
>win without the benchmark ever being run.  mp3.com for instance 
>sponsored us so that they could save $22 million on Netapps and Suns. 
>
>I would expect WAFL to beat Linux/NFS/ReiserFS V3/RAID because that is 
>their niche and they are sharp and I bet their zero copy NFS code is 
>better than Linux's, but no one knows for real.  I would be curious to 
>see Reiser4 benchmarked against WAFL when we are done, especially if you
>
>toss in some cards from umem that Mike sells.  ReiserFS might save some 
>disk space compared to WAFL.
>
>I would expect NetApp to just blow away any NTFS server.... but I 
>haven't measured it.
>
>  
>


-- 
Hans